![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldReading Jonathan Freedland's latest Comment is Free essay, this one on the success and charisma of Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond who may yet lead his country to independence, I wondered if I caught onto his strategy.
The 1980 and 1995 Québec referenda on independence offered two choices, continued federalism or a shift to independence. Put in such stark terms, the moderate middle--the elements of the electorate that were not sure about independence but didn't want the status quo--tended to vote against independence. By offering three options, including two laying clim to greater autonomy for Scotland, Salmond would manage to separate that portion of the Scottish elecotrate wanting a change in the British-Scottish relationship from the ranks of the "No" vote.
If a Scottish referendum produced a substantial majority of Scottish voters demanding greater autonomy, whether outright independence and devo-max, that majority against the existing constitutional structure in Scotland would itself be a victory. If Westminister chose to negotiate devo-max, then he'd clearly have a continued mandate. And if Westminister chose not to negotiate, then conceivably many of the Scottish voters who voted in favour of a changed constitutuional relationship might shift wholesale to the ranks of Scottish separatism, again with Salmond as leader. Either way, Salmond and the SNP would be well-positioned to take advantage of future political shifts.
Thoughts?
Intriguingly, the only possible obstacle Scottish political hands can see in Salmond's way is his cherished dream of independence. No matter how high the SNP climbs in the polls, public support for a Scottish break from the UK remains stubbornly pegged at about 38% or lower. If Scotland votes no, that could surely break the Salmond spell. It would certainly cause restlessness among those SNP activists who have so far accepted the leader's gradualism.
Salmond has seen the risk, of course, and plans a second question of his own, offering independence-minus, or "devo-max", a supercharged form of autonomy that stops short of a full rupture. That would surely pass. Such an outcome might even suit Salmond better than independence, for his appeal rests, in part, on his status as the underdog, the plucky (Scottish) man against the mighty (London) machine. All-powerful first minister he may be but, as long as he is campaigning for independence, rather than achieving it, this appeal remains intact. For Salmond, truly the journey is as important as the destination.
The 1980 and 1995 Québec referenda on independence offered two choices, continued federalism or a shift to independence. Put in such stark terms, the moderate middle--the elements of the electorate that were not sure about independence but didn't want the status quo--tended to vote against independence. By offering three options, including two laying clim to greater autonomy for Scotland, Salmond would manage to separate that portion of the Scottish elecotrate wanting a change in the British-Scottish relationship from the ranks of the "No" vote.
If a Scottish referendum produced a substantial majority of Scottish voters demanding greater autonomy, whether outright independence and devo-max, that majority against the existing constitutional structure in Scotland would itself be a victory. If Westminister chose to negotiate devo-max, then he'd clearly have a continued mandate. And if Westminister chose not to negotiate, then conceivably many of the Scottish voters who voted in favour of a changed constitutuional relationship might shift wholesale to the ranks of Scottish separatism, again with Salmond as leader. Either way, Salmond and the SNP would be well-positioned to take advantage of future political shifts.
Thoughts?
